EDLD 5342 Part 4 Reflection

Reflection: I found all the numbers a little overwhelming, but I remember Dr. Lu said not to delve too deeply in the numbers and she wanted us to get the financial big picture. Looking at the local revenues that come in and comparing it to the state funding was a real eye-opener. With such a big number of students falling into the economically disadvantaged (74.7%) and at-risk (51%) catagories in a propert-poor district, there is no wonder why law suits are being raised to make sure students have an equal opportunity to succeed. It is imperative we do what we can to assure our students are as educated as possible to add to the wealth and economic development of our state and our country.

EDLD 5342

Socorro ISD Source of Funding and Allocation

Socorro ISD’s local property tax for 2010-2011 budget was $85,043,173 with other immediate and local taxes of $4,563,347. Its M&O tax rate is .0946% when added to the I&S of .264% equals 1.18%, .05% less than the state average. (TEA) Local revenues cover 23.87% of the general fund, while state funding covers 75.55% with additional allocated funds of $214,492,504. Federal funds are an additional 1,640,000 at .58% of the total general fund revenues. From local sources by category: businesses- $2,071,017,068 (25.2%), residences- $5,718,669,624 (69.6%), land- $391,198,802 (4.8%), and other- $38,198,802 (.5%).  High numbers are reflected in economically disadvantaged (74.7%), LEP (21.4%), and At-Risk (51%) which increase the WADA funds. (TEA, Academic)

Actual program expenditures show a direct alignment with WADA funds and special programs, although it is clear some programs are more expensive than others depending on the population served. With 65% ($146,671,399) of expenditures going toward regular education, this reflects the high incidence of economically disadvantaged and at-risk populations in the regular education program that need supplemental approaches to ensure achievement.  Only 3.3% ($7,403,233) of actual expenditures goes toward bilingual programs, even though 20.3% of the student population qualifies. Expenditures for SPED are 13.6% ($30,659,308) for 7.7% of the district’s students, indicating the added expense of specialized personnel and equipment for special education services.

TEA, 2011-2012 Budgeted Financials for Socorro ISD, http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/cgi/sas/broker?_service=marykay&_program=sfadhoc.budget_report_2012.sas&_service=appserv&_debug=0&who_box=&who_list=071909

TEA, Academic Excellence Indicator System, Socorro ISD, http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/cgi/sas/broker

5342 Week 3 Data Comments

Week 3 Assignment

(Part 1-Wiki Group)

1)      percentage of economically disadvantaged students, District 1- 93.3%, District 2- 20.7%

2)      the Total Refined ADA Adjusted for Decline, District 1- 3,893.754, District 2- 4032.937

3)      the Weighted ADA (WADA) for each district, District 1-  5,555.815, District 2- 4794.076

Develop a group position statement as to why the district with the smaller ADA has the larger WADA, post to your Wiki and the professor’s cohort blog, and comment on at least one other cohort group submission.

District 1 has a higher percentage of economically disadvantaged students and other special needs students than District 2, so greater funds are needed. Because the cost of educating these students is higher, they receive a higher WADA than District 2.

(Part 2-Wiki Group)

4)    determine the Revenue per WADA @ Compressed Rate and using the WADA figures from #1 above, District 1- $5044, District 2- $7206

5)    calculate the total target revenue (the figure is not included in your information) for the Maintenance and Operations Fund for each district,

District 1- $5044 x 5555.815 = 28023530

District 2- $7206 x 4794.076 = 34546111

6)    identify the total number of Teachers, Librarians, Nurses, & Counselors in each district

District 1- 281, District 2- 307

Post to your Wiki and the professor’s cohort blog and compare your figures with at least two other cohort group submissions.

(Part 3- Wiki Group)

Using the Wiki group process and your data from # 2 above for two Texas school districts, develop a 2 – 4 page paper concerning the fact that the intent of the Weighted Average Daily Attendance was to provide more money and professionals working directly with students to District 2 than to District 1 because of the percentage of economically disadvantaged students but failed to accomplish that goal in this case, site your group thoughts on these differences and the potential positive and negative impact to each program funded under Maintenance and Operations, post to your Wiki and the professor’s cohort blog and comment on at least two other cohort group submissions.

(Part 4 is individual)

(Part 5- Wiki Group)

7)    determine the 2010 Local District Property Value (DPV),

District 1- $145,968,635

District 2- $2,916,187,709

8)    the I & S Tax Collections

District 1- $94,871

District 2- $8,836,256

9)    the Chapter 46 (EDA)  totals

District 1- $572,716

District 2- $0

10) determine which district has the most funds available to make payments on existing debt/school facility bonds

Because Property Values and Tax Collections are much higher, District 2 has more funds. Even though District 1 needs are higher due to economically disadvantaged and special needs/bilingual students, more money is available to District 2.

Prepare a group conclusion on the possible condition of facilities in both districts and the potential impact on student learning,  post to your Wiki and the professor’s cohort blog, and comment on at least two other cohort group submissions.

This is a clear example of inequity that has property-poor districts concerned about proper funding for programs and facilities. Property-poor districts inherently have more economically disadvantaged, special education and bilingual students. One can conclude District 2 most likely has better facilities since there are more funds available for maintenance and upkeep. District 2 also has more funds available for new building.

(Part 6- Wiki Group)

11) determine the Compensatory Education Allotment for each district

District 1- $3,835,006

District 2- $633,369

Develop a group statement on the potential impact on student learning, post to your Wiki and the professor’s cohort blog and comment on at least two other cohort group submissions.

Comparing District 1 and 2 figures, District 1 should have more personnel and special programs available for students in need.

    

Additional Stakeholder Input

EDLD 5342

Additional Stakeholder Input in the Budgeting Process

Central Office Administrators and Staff- Input I could receive from this group could be changes in federal and state mandates, grant funding available, changes in program and staff needed, revenues received or generated for different programs, weekly/month expenses of departments, evaluation of new best practices and cost, technology improvements, PEIMS data, testing data and staff development needs.

Principals- Input I could receive from this group could be program costs, FTEs needed to support student requests/academic/extra-curricular needs, CIPs, reports on maintenance and utility costs.

Site-Based Decision Making Committees- Input I could receive from this group could be coordination of district/campus goals and objectives, evaluation of effectiveness of programs, suggestions for reducing costs, prioritizing programs, and reaction to proposed budgets cuts and expenditures.

Teacher Organizations- Input I could receive from this group could be reaction from teachers and staff about district plans for personnel changes, prioritized list of employee benefits requests, and cost comparisons between districts pertaining to personnel benefits and work conditions. This group would be essential in helping to explain budget considerations and gather questions from employees about the process.

Key Stakeholders- Input I could receive from this group could be corporate and homeowner tax changes, political issues, business needs, grants and community programs to help the district.

Board of Trustees- Input I could receive from this group could be priorities of the community and what they want from our schools, political considerations, reactions of the public to district programs, and how the public perceives the district and the value it brings to the community.

Superintendent's Role

EDLD 5342

Superintendent’s Role and Responsibilities in the Budgeting Process

The superintendent’s role is to prepare a budget for the board of trustees to approve. In order to do this effectively, our superintendent first reviews the data from PEIMS and WADA and compares it to last year’s district improvement plan goals to evaluate progress. Particulars are provided by the District Budget Director. The Chief Personnel Director provides information regarding FTEs. This information is summarized for the board of trustees to review and the superintendent works with them to revise district goals. As district goals are established, the superintendent oversees the review and revision of campus and department improvement plans. Each member of the cabinet is responsible for his or her areas and coordinates the improvement plans.

Working with the District Budget Director, the superintendent monitors the budget to make sure expenditures are being used correctly. He makes sure the calendar guidelines are enforced and public is kept informed and invited to give input into the process.

This year’s budget had a projected shortfall of $20 million dollars. In order to contain costs, the cabinet brainstormed possible solutions. The superintendent felt strongly that personnel would not experience a reduction in force. Working with the Chief Personnel Director, certain personnel were reassigned to different campuses, some job descriptions were eliminated, and normal attrition was used without replacement to cut personnel expenses. By redistributing personnel, no one lost his or her job. FTEs were scrutinized more strictly to eliminate extra jobs and trim costs. Class sizes were increased in certain areas to compensate. Transportation also was reviewed to consolidate bus routes and drivers’ schedules to be as cost effective as possible.

The superintendent must keep current with legislative mandates and political implications to adjust the budget that he proposes to the board, as well as keep abreast of current instructional trends to make allowances for new strategies for improving student achievement.

Understanding TEA Budget Guidelines

Understanding TEA Budgeting Guidelines

There are many types of budget formats and they are not uniform across the state, but a strong budget based on the board of trustees guidelines matches a school district’s needs with the resources available to it. A good budget also acts as a tool to evaluate programs and the success of those programs in alignment with student needs. Like any solution-based document, identification of the problems that are to be addressed is essential. This must be done with a careful review of data of student performance and measurable objectives of the effectiveness of existing programs. Adequate resources cannot be allocated unless the problems are clearly identified and solutions to tackle those problems considered. Solid planning and a comprehensive planning strategy is essential because school districts are limited with their resources, the public has high expectations for the services provided and student achievement results, the diversity of the types of services and programs a district provides is wide, and support is necessary from many different stakeholders making constant communication throughout the process highly desirable.

In this review, it becomes apparent the budget is the number one responsibility of the superintendent. One cannot overemphasize the importance of overseeing this process since it becomes a political document reflecting the superintendent’s accountability to its citizens for not only the fiscal side, but for the effectiveness of programs in the role of student achievement and success. It is a political powder keg that wraps up all the components of a successful superintendency and school district. The school district budget translates into how effective a superintendent is and is an objective measurement of all policies that person puts into place. It also is a document used to determine if the monies allocated have fulfilled federal, state and local legal mandates and responsibilities.

Planning, preparation and evaluation reflect the three components of the school budget process. In our consideration of top five dates of importance in the budget cycle, it becomes increasing clear the process never really stops. As an incoming superintendent, it is important that it is clear to everyone that even though there are scheduled activities throughout the year in this budget process, it is an ongoing process that requires constant revision and evaluation to address changes in academic expectations, government mandates and community demands. Understanding the state, TEA and local legal guidelines for the budget process becomes imperative. During the course of the school year, at every juncture, communication not only with individual stakeholder groups is essential, but posting proposals, findings and recommendations in a numbers of different public venues is required. In order to elicit public support of the school district and its budget, it makes sense to make these things as clear and transparent as possible. The superintendent must be available to answer questions, and therefore needs to keep abreast of developments at every step.

Annual district revenue estimates are necessary so district goals can be prioritized. Without an accurate accounting, programs and services will suffer. State revenue in the form of Tier I & II and other state assistance and local property tax revenue must be balances with annual district and campus expenditure estimates. This is why the detailed district improvement plan and campus improvement plans are so important.

These major insights are components that one can utilize to understand the big picture when it comes to putting together a comprehensive budget. Analyzing and reviewing data to develop strong district goals with the board of trustees should be a priority with any incoming superintendent. Emphasizing to all stakeholders their importance in the process and that the process is ongoing is another essential message that one can utilize from the review of information. Making sure there is a strong district and campus improvement plan format that helps to identify goals/objectives and is useful in evaluating programs and their cost needs to be a priority with a new superintendent as well. Maintaining a system of checking the progress along the way of the budget process is another lesson in making sure the budget process goes as smoothly as possible.

Goal-Drive Budget

EDLD 5342

Importance of a Goal-Driven Budget

In the beginning of the district budget process, working together with the board of trustees in identifying goals that spring from PEIMS coding and WADA is essential. As a young administrator, the district and campus leaders constantly talked about how important coding was in reporting to the state. Now, as we look carefully at the budget process, another aspect of the importance of coding comes to light, as emphasized by Dr. Artebury when he spoke about looking at the state reports that come out in July with PEIMS codes indicating the needs of certain students such as economically disadvantaged. WADA also helps the process to begin setting goals since it indicates funds that will be available for the district for their programs. In this critical part of the budget process, the board of trustees take on one of their most important functions since this lays the groundwork for a goal-driven budget developed through the building of the district improvement plan and the campus improvements plans that coordinate with it.

The way that the Socorro ISD District Improvement Plan is put together demonstrates a clear alignment between district vision, mission and goals with campus goals and objectives.  This is an example of what Dr. Artebury means when he talks about principals being encouraged to develop a campus plan that is, “a version of the vision”. Every campus goal stems from a district goal, and then it is broken down by objective and sub-objectives. Campus improvement teams participate in a process that makes sure the objective is measurable, as well how to tell when the activity corresponding to the objective is implemented and how to tell when it is accomplished. One of the most important components that is constantly stressed is what funds will be used to drive the activity’s objective and who will be responsible for making it happen. The campus improvement team, made up of teachers, students, parents and community business owners review the plan when it completed gathering input from different stakeholders.

It is reviewed by directors of different central office departments to assure it correlates with district goals and that the funding cited is correct for the type of activity. At the district level, committees meet comprised of a combination of district personnel, campus personnel and community members to review campus plans and department plans to align them with the district improvement plan. Our superintendent, from the very beginning of his tenure, has insisted on transparency in how the district conducts business. The budget process is no exception to this as several community meetings in each high school feeder pattern are held throughout the year to inform the public of progress on the budget and other issues of concern. This is the embodiment of what Dr. Nicks calls the importance of,”communicate, communicate, communicate”. As future superintendents, it is necessary to keep in mind excellent communication not only means imparting information to people, but to be good listeners. Another fine example of making sure communication is as open as possible is to make sure board of trustees members are updated on a continual basis throughout the process so the superintendent can gain important insights of other community feeling and ideas about the budget. Dr. Artebury emphasizes working with the board is critical to getting community feedback and understanding political undercurrents that effect budget considerations.

Week 2, Group 5 Consensus

EDLD 5342

Week 2, Group 5 Assignment Post

Top Five List of Events and Dates in the Development of the District Budget

1)      November  - Create Budget Development Plan

Budget priorities/initiatives identified by Executive Team Collect and Analyze student projections

Student schedules and campus budgets for personnel must be driven by student requests and campus programs.

2)      February 14-25 –

·         Distribute budget preparation documents to campuses and central offices

·         Conduct budget workshops for central budget managers

·         Conduct budget workshops for campus administrators by Learning Community

These documents generated by gathering this information are necessary to evaluate goals, set responsibilities and to set up the framework for the budget driven by goals and objectives.

3)      May 12 – Board of Trustee Business Briefing

·         Preliminary 2011 - 2012 Budget Review

·         Review Revenue Projections

Along with the preliminary estimate of taxable values received from Central Appraisal District, the Board of Trustees sees the preliminary budget and reviews how it aligns with revenue projections. This gives the superintendent the opportunity to gain support and understanding of the new budget by clarifying any questions and presenting information that correlates with district goals.

4)      June 23 - Board of Trustees Meeting

·         Tax Rate Public Hearing

·         Adopt 2010-2011 Budget

The community has the opportunity to weigh in on the tax rate and see how it corresponds to the new budget.

5)      Aug 25- Board of Trustees Meeting

·         Adopt a Tax Rate

Since the entire budget is predicated on the tax rate adopted by the board, this final step assures that the budget will be covered for the upcoming school year.

Top Five List of Events and Dates in the Development of the District Budget

EDLD 5342

Week 2, Group Assignment

Top Five List of Events and Dates in the Development of the District Budget

1)      November  - Create Budget Development Plan

Budget priorities/initiatives identified by Executive Team Collect and Analyze student projections

Student schedules and campus budgets for personnel must be driven by student requests and campus programs.

2)      February 14-25 –

·        Distribute budget preparation documents to campuses and central offices

·        Conduct budget workshops for central budget managers

·        Conduct budget workshops for campus administrators by Learning Community

These documents generated by gathering this information are necessary to evaluate goals, set responsibilities and to set up the framework for the budget driven by goals and objectives.

3)      March 21 - April 1 - Review and analyze budget input (Budget Services/ Executive Team, and Executive Directors)

Evaluation of input from campuses and central office departments need to be analyzed to align programs, performance goals and funds needed to drive them.

4)      May 12 - Board of Trustees Business Briefing

·        Preliminary 2011 - 2012 Budget Review

·        Review Revenue Projections

Along with the preliminary estimate of taxable values received from Central Appraisal District, the Board of Trustees sees the preliminary budget and reviews how it aligns with revenue projections. This gives the superintendent the opportunity to gain support and understanding of the new budget by clarifying any questions and presenting information that correlates with district goals.

5)      June 23 - Board of Trustees Meeting

·        Tax Rate Public Hearing

·        Adopt 2010-2011 Budget

The community has the opportunity to weigh in on the tax rate and see how it corresponds to the new budget.

Comparing District Improvement Plans

The difference between my district’s improvement plan and the AISD’s improve plan is vast. AISD Has set up there document to include how the process was arrived at with links to go to specific components while SISD starts with a clear vision and mission followed by three goals from which the entire plan stems from. Each goal is then broken down by objectives and sub-objectives that show who is responsible, clear timelines, funds to pay for it, indicators showing implementation and effect, as well as formative and summative evaluation for each. AISD has some of the same indicators, but is not consistent with the systematic reporting. This really opened my eyes about the way such a document can be organized to become a useful tool in driving the budget.

EDLD 5342 Week 1-Assignment 1, Part 4

Some major differences between the AISD District Improve Plan and the Socorro ISD District Improvement Plan are 1) format, 2) clarification of district goals, 3) how budgeted funds are displayed and organized and, 5) correlation  of goal-programs and budget.

The AISD plan details each part of the process, including reflection questions, in a document that has many links to outside reports of different committees. The Socorro District Improvement Plan is organized very differently. First it lists the district vision and mission statement, then the board of trustees. After a short description of the logistics of the district, three goals for district improvement are set forth. Everything in the document relates to one of these three goals:

1)      SISD will improve student performance in all assessed areas to ensure all students are prepared to graduate college or career ready.

2)      SISD will provide service and benefits to attract, retain and guarantee growth opportunities to ensure a highly qualified staff.

3)      SISD will provide active parent and community engagement in the education process to improve student achievement.

The fact that SISD establishes comprehensive goals that everything flows from makes the plan easy to follow and understand, as well as provides a clear path for measurement and correlation with budget items. AISD’s plan while trying to be comprehensive, has the appearance of many components being cobbled together rather than starting from a clear premise. Different memos are inserted into the document making it informative on specific programs without an overall sense of direction.

After goals are defined in the SISD plan, an assessment of strengths and programs under each goal is summarized. At that point budget funding from different sources are listed. Starting with the State Budget, the State Compensatory Education Budget follows, then the Title I Budget, Title II & III Budget, Education Jobs Bill Budget, and ARRA Budget. At this point, a matrix breaking down each goal into objectives and sub-objectives appears showing the strategy/activity, person(s) responsible, timeline, funding source, evidence of implementation, evidence of impact, formative evaluation and summative evaluation for each. It is very clear how each objective and sub-objective is funded and how the effectiveness will be measured. All of these are tied together throughout the rest of the document.

The AISD document is very detailed with the process which was used. Budget monies are not separated into categories as to where the money has come from. A valuable matrix shows original budget numbers and how those change in a year with percentages for 11 budget areas. Also included are community bulletins and checklists. Toward the last eight pages of the 53 page document, is a set of appendices.  The State Compensatory Budget has components listed, but not broken down. Only the total of $37.6 million is shown. External grants are also listed to show $107 million, but not broken down. The last seven pages of the document have a matrix for the NCLB Monitoring System with the following categories: 1) desired result, Measurable evidence, activities, resources, and timelines with only one goal listed.

Key Definitions

Even though these terms are similar, it is important to have a clear definition when discussing what needs to be provided to districts. The language is reflected in the law and appears in lawsuits, so interpretation of the meanings is essential to understanding a district’s or the state’s obligation to students. 

EDLD 5342 Week 1-Assignment 1, Part 3 

Equality-

    Definition- every student has the same access to the same type of basic educational program.

    Example 1) State funding formula provides equal funds for educational programs that benefit all students and enable a school district to meet state accreditation standards. This would include reading, math, and other basic courses.

    Example 2) Districts receive equal funds  based on the 3 Tiers formula.

Equity-

   Definition- that the system is fair and responds to the needs of individuals.

   Example 1) Special program allocations represent equity funds and are provided to meet the individual needs of students like military or bilingual students.

  Example 2) State compensatory funds to assist students who are economically disadvantaged are another example of equity funding.

Adequacy-

   Definition- that the school district receives financial support sufficient to meet state accreditation standards.

   Example 1) Teacher salaries have a state base to make sure districts provide adequate service.

   Example 2) The State provide textbook allotments to assure students have access to state standards.

Critical Issue from the State Finance Formula & their Importance

This part of the assignment was valuable as we investigate the nuts and bolts of finance. Clearly, there have been many attempts at helping districts to secure a financial base in a fair manner. With economic concerns on every level, this becomes more difficult, especially when we consider increasing wages, building and maintenance costs, fuel, and utilities, let alone books and educational materials. As someone who worked in a more isolated rural community, it is important for small districts to have options and flexibility to be able to come up with unique solutions that will work for them.

EDLD 5342 Week 1-Assignment 1, Part 2

Critical Issues in State Funding

1)      Tier 1 is figured on student ADA, special program participation and location of the district. Schools receive first the.86 in tax effort per student from the State. In an effort to equalize distribution of funds, the formula make allowances for small, poor and rural districts that may not have the same tax base. It also amplifies the need to ensure attendance efforts of schools so they can reap maximum benefits.

2)      The transportation allotment becomes critical for many districts as transportation costs are often one of the most expensive components of a district’s budget. This is a budget item shared between the district and the state and since it is based on ridership, it encourages districts to minimize routes to be be more cost effective.

3)      The small district adjustment is also critical since it attempts to help smaller, rural districts so they do not have to consolidate. This gives a smaller district an opportunity to operate more independently.

Top items in Texas Finance History

EDLD 5342 Week 1-Assignment 1, Part 1

1)      Citizens in the United Mexican States obviously felt education was important for their children since elementary schools were mandated to be created in the Federal Constitution written in 1824. They were never established, however, and became listed in the Texas Declaration of Independence in 1836 as a cause to seek independence. It is clear from the very beginning of settlement in Texas, education was important to parents and viewed as an obligation of the state.

2)      To address this growing concern and make sure it was funded, the Texas Constitution of 1845 established the Permanent School Fund. Managed by the State Board of Education, the intent was to create an on-going endowment providing for funding of education without taxing the citizenry. It is based on the sale and lease of public lands and mineral rights.

3)      After the Civil War, a new Texas Constitution was written and imposed mandatory schooling for children 8-14; however, even more revolutionary was when Reconstructionists were thrown out of office in 1873 and yet another Texas Constitution was written in 1876 declaring essentially that education is to be diffused to the general population and the State was responsible for funding and maintaining this education. Since this provision the grand-daddy of many modern day law suits, it is significant that the State recognized itself as a major provider of this service.

4)      Senate Bill 1 passed in 1995 is an attempt to provide adequate and equitable funding for all school districts by giving property rich school districts 5 choices to distribute funds that exceed a certain amount to property poor districts thus evoking the term, “Robin Hood Law”. The State is still struggling with the fairness of this solution as it has spawned lawsuits on both sides as to how distribution should work.